Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Vegetarianism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Arguments against vegetarianism

Anonymous user 207.196.166.183 made this major edit, presenting a number of interesting and detailed arguments against vegetarianism. Unfortunately this person got carried away and also introduced a whole load of unsupported POV remarks as part of the same edit. It would be a highly wearisome a task to cut all the prejudice and rhetorical "fat" from the "meat" of this edit (so to speak), so it has been reverted. However, I think 207.196.166.183 makes some interesting points that deserve a mentioning in the article. If you read this, anonymous user 207.196.166.183, please have another go, but try to follow the principle of NPOV. GrahamN 02:38, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agred. We should look at some of these arguments, and present them here in an NPOV fashion. BTW, I have now read in a number of sources that vegetarian diets kill far more animals than meat-eating diets. In our world of six billion people, we cannot support our population except through large-scale machine-assisted farming. Vegetarians (and the rest of us) depend on this farming to stay alive, but this farming kills millions of rats, mice, voles, crickets, insects and other animals during various steps of farming. Reducing meat consumption increases farming for plants. Is it really better to kill a thousand mice than one cow? (For the cow, yes!) I happen not to be a vegetarian, but I'd kind of like to be; I have already reduced my meat consumption. But points such as this make me question whether being a vegetarian is feasible or desirable. RK 02:47, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reducing meat consumption does not increase plant farming, since animals also eat lots of plants (besides processed meat leftovers and lots of fish). In fact, lowering meat consumption would greatly decrease the demand. I read that in order to produce 1 kg of meat one needs 6 kg of plants, but I don't know if I remember correctly. Come to think of it, this 1:6 ratios seems a bit optimistic... Guaka 12:43, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

perhaps so, but meat brings to the body a concentrated amount of protein in a very low amount of food, that plants cannot easily provide. One must not confuse basic biomass provided to sustain people, with the necessary amount of each of the components necessary. I don't buy that 1:6 ratio

Indeed, the ratio is much more like 1:10 -- of the biomass 'going in' to a cow, only about 10% is converted into growth (read: 'meat'), which is a rather low efficiency-level. Of course, some of this input biomass would be deemed unsuitable for humans (thistles, grass, leaves), but the same amount of chemical energy to feed n people beef would feed 10n people wheat. (This figure is from my memory of GCSE biology, some 5 years ago, but I doubt it's changed since then ;-).)

James F. 02:23, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have heard comments that Britain could support itself in terms of food if people ate meat (as we have enough land for animals and plants, although would involve removing most remaining forest), but not if people ate only plants, as many regions are unsuitable for food crops, but suitable for cowes/sheep etc. --NeilTarrant 14:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Kill far more animals"? Are we talking biomass or just number of critters? --Calieber 19:48, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

However, it is important for vegetarians and vegans to be conscious of their intake of protein, B12, and other nutrients.

Well, not being a vegetarian, I guess I'll stop watching my nutritional intake... --Calieber 19:48, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder why the first external links point out a movie site. And as I'm French, I'm not sure to well understand this passage :
Meat vegetarianism refers to the consuming of a vegetarian by a meat-eater viz. A human eating a steak. This is because of the second defination of vegetarian, i.e. "Something that eats vegetarians."
Is this a joke, or something like that ? Rege 21:14, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No joke. This is real. Auric The Rad 04:56, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

The name meat-vegetarian is not something I have come across, but this policy is part of a Jewish and Muslim dietary laws. i.e Carnivores and Omnivores are not Kosher.PRB 11:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the website which point out the meatrix have a link with the vegetarianism because I didn't wait the loading of the flash animation. For the other definition (meat vegetarianism), I am astonished. I'm surprising that a canibalian can be considering as a vegetarian. Rege 20:50, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anecdotally, not only do some people have an intuitive aesthetic distaste for meat to begin with, but a significant number of vegetarians come to feel that way some months after becoming vegetarian for other reasons. Then this becomes one more reason for remaining vegetarian. I'm not going to add this to the article, because I don't have numbers or any authoritative support for this claim. But if anyone else has a firmer basis for this claim, it might be good to add a brief comment.

i recognise this, but for me the aesthetic block arose mainly when confronting inescapable proof of the animal origin of the food -- bones, blood vessels or blood, skin, eyes, and so forth served to remind me that this food had been an animal. that this motivated my vegetarianism i account to the ethics of meat consumption, rather than to the aesthetics of meat. i'd certainly still like to see it as a category in this article -- but, like you, i'm not prepared to speak so authoritatively. --Hamstar 09:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

correct definition?

Since when is lacto-vegetarian the most common understood meaning of vegetarianism? In Australia at least a vegetarian is understood to eat eggs and milk unless they say they're vegan. I have asked several people and they all agree vegetarians eat eggs, vegans don't. --komencanto 01:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"Vegetarianism is a dietary practice excluding all body parts of any animal and products derived from them (e.g. lard, tallow, gelatin, cochineal) from one's diet."

this is the definition of veganism not vegetarianism, iam right? - --Cyprus2k1 15:31, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nah; veganism means excluding not only products derived from (i.e., made out of) animal body parts, but also other animal products like milk and even honey...

--DanielCristofani 13:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But the phrasing leaves it ambiguous whether 'them' has as its antecedent 'any animal' or 'all body parts', i.e., are we talking about products derived from animals or merely their body parts. Shimmin 17:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does the 'fish and pain' subject deserve space at Vegetarianism or should we just create a seperate article? Usedbook 20:36 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

...The Royal Society published research by Lynne Sneddon establishing for the first time, she said, the existence of nervous system receptors in the head of fish that respond to "damaging stimuli."
By injecting bee venom and acetic acid into the lips of captive rainbow trout, the Royal Society said, Sneddon and other scientists at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh discovered that the fish displayed "profound behavioral and physiological changes" over a period of time, "comparable to those observed in higher mammals."
After the injections, Sneddon said, "fish demonstrated a 'rocking' motion strikingly similar to the kind of motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals, and the trout injected with acetic acid were also observed to rub their lips onto the gravel in the tank and onto the tank walls."
The Royal Society said in a statement, "This indicates, the researchers believe, that fish can perceive pain." The research contradicts the riverbank lore of anglers drawing on earlier research by Professor James Rose of the University of Wyoming that fish do not feel pain because their brain is incapable of that response.
Sneddon said the research did not make her anti-angling. "I wouldn't say it was cruel as long as the angler is getting the fish out quickly, killing and eating it," she said. "That outweighs the short period of discomfort for the fish." Alan Cowell, New York Times, May 6, 2003

Let's keep this sort of material off the vegetarianism page, please. Animal rights would be a much more apropriate place, or a new article. Mkweise 23:24 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Using Animal rights instead was of my opinion aswell. Thanks for the input and be well. Usedbook 19:33 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

There should probably be a small mention, probably under reasons for, but yes, an animal rights link should help.

Re less pompous definition: I'm all for having the most concise definition that is correct as well as complete and unambiguous, but you oversimplified. Not eating fish or meat falls way short of defining vegetarianism, especially since many understand meat to refer to the flesh of mammals only. So you'd have to add at least poultry and seafood to the enumeration, and that still leaves exotic "delicacies" like snails, frogs' legs and sheep's eayballs in a gray area.

Vegetariansim is a subject of much confusion among non-vegetarians; you'd be surprized how often people have said things to me like:

"Oh you don't eat meat? Well, how about some chicken then?"

"Oh you're a vegetarian? Do you eat sausage?"

Mkweise 10:57 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

The section on Judaism seems unduly prominent, going much more into the background of the belief than the others. It seems like many of the details are better left on referenced pages such as the provided link. Furthermore:

Not eating meat simply because kosher meat is hard to come by is not exactly what you'd call being a vegetarian. It may be related, but it should probably be made clear that that's not really vegetarianism.
If you are vegetarian in order to keep kosher, not for pragmatic reasons but for ethical reasons, what does that mean? Doesn't it just mean that you're an ethical vegetarian who also happens to be Jewish? Isn't that subsumed by the section on ethical vegetarianism?
Why "red kosher meat"? Is kosher chicken or fish easier to come by?
I personally haven't experienced very many non-Orthodox Jews being vegetarian for the sole reason of keeping kosher, though of course that doesn't mean it's not true. More likely you might not order meat out at a restaurant (which would be keeping kosher enough for many people). (Orthodox Jews generally live in communities where kosher meat is available so it's usually not an issue.) Axlrosen 17:36, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Moreover, the meat of pen-raised animals (...) have much higher levels of fat and less nutritional value than the meat of their corresponding free-range or wild bretheren."

Couldn't find bretheren in my e-dictionaries. But it did remind me of brethren:

Wordnet: brethren

    n : the members of a male religious order

GCIDE:
Brethren \Breth"ren\, n.;

  pl. of Brother.
  [1913 Webster]

  Note: This form of the plural is used, for the most part, in
        solemn address, and in speaking of religious sects or
        fraternities, or their members.
        [1913 Webster]

So I guess this needs some rewriting... :) Guaka 15:26, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't see what the quoted passage has to do with vegetarianism in the first place. Mkweise 15:39, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jainism and microorganisms

For references, just google for one-sensed beings. Mkweise 01:59, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We need to avoid creating a historical anachronism. Jainists could not have had rules that directly addressed microorganisms many centuries (or millennia) ago; they didn't even know that microorganisms existed. Rather, once they discovered the existence of these microscopic organisms, they then applied their sacred texts to this new discovery, and came up with rules for dealing with this case. Many of them may even have interpreted their texts as having been revealed to deal with this possibility all along, but that is a religious belief, as opposed to a historical certainty. And this is all fine. The precise same thing is true in regards to halakha (Jewish law). There were no rabbinic Jewish laws specifically made in regards to microorganisms; at that time Jews didn't know that microorganisms existed. Rather, once they discovered their existence, they then applied Jewish laws and principles to this new discovery, and came up with rules for dealing with this case. So we should phrase this section of the article very carefully. RK 02:08, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

They did know thousands of years ago about the existence of what today are called microorganisms. Read some of the ancient souce texts on Jain cosmology, it'll do you good :-) Mkweise 03:31, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are making an extraordinary claim, one that requires extraordinary proof. How these people, thousands of years ago, learn about microscoping one-celled organism? How did they detect them? Why did no one else in surrounding areas ever learn about them? Why didn't knowledge of this groundbreaking discovery spread? Do any mainstream historians of science credit this claim at all? RK 18:04, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'd add that most, if not all, microorganisms have more then one sense... Nikola 05:54, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

How did they detect them? by the use of common sense. They figured that living beings come in all kinds of shapes and sizes and that logically there must be smaller, still smaller and micro-organisms. This was not a discovery, but rather a philosophy. And spread, it did, to Indo-China, China and Japan. Buddhism pretty much has the same basis. Drjagan 10:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that Jain recognise existence for soul for everything including living and non living thing including plant or rocks and as consequence try to avoid harming them whether they knew the existence of microorganism is irrelevant. FWBOarticle 06:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many religious texts, including Jain, Hindu and Jewish scriptures, have thousands of vague sentences that in retrospect, can be re-interpreted as referring to some newly discovered facets of the world, such as one-celled organisms, or the Big Bang. But to the best of my knowledge, no mainstream historians of science credit Jewish Kabbalah with describing the Big Bang theory of the universe. Many Orthodox Jews do make this claim, and they claim that the text is clear. But to non-Orthodox Jews, this is not such a clear claim, and it looks to the rest of the world like they are reading this new interpretation back into older texts. I am saying that the same thing is true here. Perhaps Jains claim that their scripture is talking about protista and bacteria. But to non-Jains, this is not such a clear claim, and it looks to the rest of the world like some Jains are reading this interpretation back into older texts. RK 18:04, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'd suggest this debate (which I admit my edit started) is not so critical to the Vegetarianism page at this point. For my taste at least, the parenthetical comment "(called one-sensed beings in Jain scripture, which was written prior to the scientific discovery of microorganisms)" is good enough, though I'd say it might be interesting to get into more detail for the Jain article. Since I'm curious to know the history, though, I've asked a question on Mkweise's talk page, which is maybe a better place for the discussion. Zashaw 21:21, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with RK, it's difficult to believe that Jains knew about microorganisms thousands of years ago. And thus I think that parenthetical comment is not very accurate. Unless it is widely accepted that early Jains did know about microorganisms, we have to say something weaker - that some people believe that they knew about them. If we get rid of that comment, then it covers all bases - it covers those that think that the Jain scriptures were specificially talking about microorganisms, and those that think that the interpretation of these passages to microorganisms were made after the fact (i.e. after microorganisms were discovered.) And, as Zashaw pointed out, this debate has little to do with vegetarianism. Axlrosen 18:09, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's not just "widely accepted", but evidenced by ancient scripture: Jains have believed for thousands of years that the air, water, and especially soil are full of "subtle lifeforms". These are described as the lowest form of life on earth (below plants) and as so small that we can't see them. BTW Jains are (and have always been) forbidden from drinking unboiled water; such a commandment wouldn't make much sense without knowledge of microorganisms. Mkweise 08:33, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The fact that Jains believed this to be true is different than saying that they knew it to be true. As an analogy, some ancient Greeks believed that matter was made up of indivisible atoms. They were right, but they didn't know, they were just guessing and happened to be right (or somewhat right - many of their specific beliefs about atoms were wrong). But the fact that they happened to get it right doesn't make them any more knowledgable than the other Greeks who believed lots of other wacky things that turned out to be wrong. The Greeks didn't see atoms, they just guessed.

The ancients 'knew' their theories to be as true as we think our physics to be the ultimate truth. How can we say that our own knowledge of atoms would NOT be utter nonsense in 10,000 years? For most of our scientific part about Cosmos, we are guessing as much as our forefathers did. Perhaps, we have defined better ways to guess, but the logics are about the same. Drjagan 10:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Just because it is unbelievable that the ancient Jains refered to microrganisms, and that the Jains couldn't have found it out untill the Microscope, we should deny them the right to use that word? It is a fundamental and widespread belief in Indic systems that just as there are variable species of animals, plants, insects and so on, logically, there must be smaller beings invisible to our eyes. Interpretation made before the discovery of micro-organisms would have meant only just the same: That there are microorganisms. The posts here are just hugely, pathetically patronising. Drjagan 10:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW according to this site http://www.jainworld.com/education/juniors/junles08.htm, the Jain belief is that earth, air, fire, and water ARE one-sense beings, not that they contain them. Sounds like there's some room for interpretation going on. E.g. perhaps the early Jains believed that these things were living beings, but now that we know about microorganisms we re-interpret that to mean that these things CONTAINED tiny living beings. (Plus, there are no micro-organisms in fire.) Axlrosen 19:06, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Earth, air, fire and water ARE NOT one-sense beings. You have understood it GROSSLY wrong. The earth, air, fire and water are elements, not living beings themselves. Living beings had bodies MADE of these elements, thus the expression, Fire-bodied or Water-bodied. A small flame can be considered as a non-mobile living being possessing a body of fire.. but the fire in the flame ipso facto is not the being. Actually, According to Indic philosophical texts, like 'Sakhyartharthvada' circa 100 BC -100 AD, there is not a single spot in the universe which is uninhabited. The Sun has dewellers as does ordinary dust. The Beings had bodies that can either be made up of physical elements and of varing proportions. Thus there are beings who have bodies entirely made of fire like those who live on the Sun, or humans whose bodies are made of all the five elements. There are also beings who have ethereal bodies made of Akasha or sky or space and some higher beings have no need for bodies that they exist as pure conscious minds alone. Therefore, your point that earth, air, fire and water being one-sense beings is just plain wrong. The second point is that the texts are plain about the existence of microorganisms. The text do not sound speculative, but are definite. For example, a verse from vAkyanAmasutra goes as follows: our Indriyas are defective; thus much of the cosmos and its beings are hidden from us, both big and small. The small are smaller than the smallest grains. 'ANU' is one word that is used to indicate the 'smallest of the smallest'. Invisible, small and microtic organisms are a matter of fact in these scriptures and they do NOT need any kind of difficult re-interpretation to suit modern discoveries. Again a verse, the source of which I forgot goes like this, 'elements are innumerable, and so are the derivatives. The impulse of material existence forces the Atman to take birth in innumerable wombs, some great and big, some thousanth part of a millet grain'. Now if that is not a reference to microscopic life, then what is it? For the upteenth time, those were not 'vague' guesses, but definite descriptions. Drjagan 10:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the article doesn't say that the Jain's knew that microorganisms exist, just that they have some moral issues with eating them. I could believe it's wrong to interfere with the little green men on Mars, and that would explain my opposition to NASA missions to Mars, even though there aren't green men on Mars. Of course, it may still be, as you suggest, that the Jain's didn't actually believe in anything we'd call microorganisms, i.e. tiny organisms you can't see, as opposed to earth, air, fire or water. That's something I don't know about. Zashaw 00:21, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Vegetarianism has strong links to many religious traditions, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, and others."

Taoism? Really? I've never heard this.

dont know why its in my subconscious, but you can check it out on google.

http://www.sinica.edu.tw/tit/dining/0795_EatVegetarian.html for example.

Interesting! Thanks! -- took a look at the page, and now I'm hungry! :-)

This article needs: explanation of different reasons vegetarians are vegetarians (I've listed 3, there are several more), explanations of different levels of vegetarianism (some people eat tuna & call themselves veg, others eat dairy and eggs, etc.--just to comment on the word's different uses); also a debunking of that damn "what do you do for protein" bit everyone feels compelled to throw in, ignoring that Hank Aaron, Carl Lewis, and Billie Jean King all apparently got enough protein). :-)

Claudine said she'd have an article for Vegetarianism soon.

Ok, thanks. --KQ

Would Putting quotes around Harming in the ovo-lacto vegetarian sentance be biased? --mincus

Probably would, unless you could medically prove that the animal is in worse shape after collection than before. IMHO of course :-) --Anders T?lind

I think that would be rather easy considering the way they are treated, the drugs that are used to increase productivity, and what happens to them after they can no longer produce. Perhaps we could just agree on a way of stating it without using the word?

Alright, this is looking good! I've incorporated my text. We still need to address the nutritional concerns (both for and against), and some scientific facts to back up my very basic discussion of the ecological concerns. Perhaps also some history of vegetarian movements and the gradual acceptance of vegetarianism in mainstream western society.

Mincus and Anders, what do you think of my use of the word 'exploitation'? I still feel guilty about eating cheese. 8-> -- Claudine

Very nice Claudine! Some of the arguments against vegetarianism are The bible (We have dominion over the animals, so was can do with them as we please +various quotes that show that God loves us if we kill animals), Plants hurt too, and aninmals kill animals and they would kill us given the chance. Um... I was thinking about writing this part up... but I think that I might be biased in favour of not eating meat, so I think that I will leave this to someone else. Perhaps I will see if I can do the nutrition myths part... --mincus

Regarding the Vitamin B12 problem: Is B12 in milk and eggs? Furthermore, I once read that B12 is in foods that have been processed by certain bacteria, and the German "Sauerkraut" was given as an example. Sauerkraut is cabbage made sour and digestable by bacteria (or yeast?). --AxelBoldt

B12 cannot be gotten reliably from most plant sources. Although most sea plants have a good amount of B12 it can and usually is lost from processing. The best source of B12 for vegetarians and vegans is from nutritional yeast or from B12 fortified: cereals, soy milk, and other "fake" vegetarian and vegan foods. As a side note, the bacteria in your intestines produce minute amounts of B12, and you can also get B12 from not washing your hands properly, but neither methods produce enough of the daily required amounts of B12. Also, if you had eaten meat previously, your body can store up to 20-30 years of the vitamin in your system before you would start showing signs of defecincy. -- mincus

Ok, how about milk, eggs, Sauerkraut? --AxelBoldt

Sorry about that... got on a little rant and forgot the main question ;) B12 is produced by bacteria and is found mainly in meat, eggs, and dairy products. Almost everyone agrees that plants are not a good source of the vitamin. --mincus

Then we still need to settle the Sauerkraut question. There's certainly bacteria or yeast involved, so it's possible that it has B12. Also, you mentioned yeast: how much would one have to consume, and in what form? Thanks --AxelBoldt

Im unable to find any sources that will say and backup that you can get a sufficent amount of B12 from vegetables (including sauerkraut), most feel that the only way to be sure is through suppliments or fortified food. It is suggested by the FDA that you have 6 mcg (micrograms) of B12 a day. A quick look through my kitchen shows me that 1 glass of soy milk gives one 50% of your daily intake, 1 B12 suppliment in tablet form give 8,333% (not a mistype), and 1 serving of Nutritional Yeast (16g) gives 130%. --mincus

How do we resolve the first sentence: "Vegetarianism is the practice of not consuming the flesh ... or products of animals." with a paragraph 7: "In everyday language, 'vegetarianism' is usually synonymous with ovo-lacto vegetarianism, which tolerates the consumption of animal products". Are we suggesting that ovo-lacto Vegetarianism isn't really Vegetarianism? Or is O.L. a form of vegetarianism? Would it be ok to modify the first sentence? -D

I would like to suggest again, that we show that vegetarians just do not eat meat, foul and fish(but they could still wear animal products and such), whereas vegan will not partake (eat, use, wear) any animal products or by-products. --mincus

There are more people calling themselves vegetarian than conforming with the definition of "vegetarian" (that is, a person who eats no meat). Since "meat" = "animal flesh as food," then technically eggs and fish are both meat (fish are animals; eggs are simply animals that haven't yet hatched. Come on, now, obviously they're not plants.) Anyway so many people eating eggs and meat, but not chicken, beef, or pork, call themselves "vegetarian," these other terms have sprung up to disambiguate: ovo-lacto vegetarian: eats eggs and dairy products but is otherwise vegetarian. Lacto-vegetarian: eats dairy products but not eggs. There are also the so-called "semi-vegetarians" (not my definition) who either occasionally eat meat, fish, or poultry; or eat some of those but not the other; or who might be a mollo-vegetarian (eats mollusks like clams and scallops) or crusto-vegetarian (eats crustaceans like crabs and shrimp) or even "ento-vegetarians" (eats insects. no, that's not a joke). Anyway, so in short: people use the term to mean a lot more than its traditional definition. The situation's a bit sloppy.

Anyway, so in answer to your question: we resolve the first sentence carefully, with diplomacy. :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

Fair enough ;) Then perhaps we need to research what all the different names are and add something about each. Also I think we need to fix/add fact to backup the part about what vegetarians do and do not get enough of. And, just a neat little note, eggs that people eat will never hatch, as they are unfertilized.

Also because they'll be chewed up and digested. Thank you. Thank you. You've been a great crowd. --KQ

hehe, spose I was begging for that ;)

I wasn't suggesting that Vegetarianism includes people who eat meat (though I understand some would disagree.) All I'm suggesting is that we remove "products" from the first sentence. Or, how about "... is the practice of not consuming the flesh, parts, and in some cases, the products of animals." Heck, I'm just gonna change it. Change it back if you disagree, and I won't mess with it again. -D

One of the things I love about Wikipedia: take a day 'off' and there are all these improvements!

Mincus, I think I'll have to start work on that postmodern theology article I've been thinking about. The first chapter of Genesis is a favourite justification for anti-vegetarian and anti-environmentalist arguments. What other examples were you thinking of? A liberal postmodern Christian might interpret the Creation story in Genesis as saying that humans are naturally more powerful than other animals, so we have a duty to take care of the earth's resources and use them wisely. In this view, abattoirs, battery farms and fur coats are *not* good things.

More stuff for my ToDo list.. 8-> -- Claudine

On the Vitamin B12 issue, it is simply not true that there are not good sources available to a strict vegetable based diet. The fermented soy bean product called Tempeh is an excellent source and can easily provide more than enough. The average daily requirement is only a few micrograms. Tempeh is used in Indonesia and other far eastern countries and is used extensively in the Macrobiotic diet. Ian

"[...] organic food principles and vegetarianism are both concerned with reducing the amount of artificial processing applied to food."

I dispute this! Vegetarianism is concerned only with the removal of bits of dead animals from the diet. It has nothing to do with artificial processing. I am a strict vegetarian, but I don't much care how much processing is done to food. In fact, I'm looking forward to the day when any type of food can be easily and cheaply synthesised. That would solve all the problems of world hunger, and completely scupper any (already dubious) claims that we need to kill animals for food. :) Sorry, am I veering off into crazy-land? Back to the point: can anyone suggest a way of rewording the above into something that is actually true...? -- Oliver Pereira 02:49 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing... Can we change the illustration? It looks terribly unappetising. Just a bunch of leaves and things. Can we replace it with a picture of a nice pizza? :) -- Oliver Pereira 02:49 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks, KQ. I think the article sounds better now. I don't know these "tofutti cuties", though: I'll have to look out for them. Perhaps we could put a picture of them up here, alongside the pizza. ;) -- Oliver Pereira 02:32 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

You're welcome. The tofutti cuties are vegan ice cream sandwiches, made from tofu. the mint chocolate chip ones are IMHO quite good. :-) --KQ

Explanation for my edits: it seemed to me that the article was simply too preachy, e.g. making ethical claims outright rather than bracketing them as being the POV of certain vegetarians, and holding out vegans as "more committed" to an ideal (when in fact many vegetarians are not so out of idealism at all).

In Huxley's Island, there are trained birds who flit about reminding people, "Here and now, folks, here and now." Sometimes I wish Wikipedia had a few digital birds to say "NPOV, folks, NPOV." :) --FOo

Dead link: (http://www.eatright.org/adap1197.html).

Generally a fine article in its current form. Since the examples under the headings Varities and Motivations have lent themselves to paragraph form, I'd recommend converting these sections from bulleted lists to a standard textual form as one might find in a print encyclopedia.

"Many people intuitively find meat thoroughly disgusting, particularly when raw, and simply prefer to abstain from animal flesh." -- Still fairly NPOV in the use of "thoroughly".

"In both environmental and economic terms the cost of raising a kilogram of animal protein is many times the cost of growing a kilogram of vegetable protein." -- Some quantification would be helpful.

"There are also nutritional considerations which encourage diets emphasising fruit, vegetables and cereals and minimising meat and fat intake." -- Discussion of fat in nutrition is getting its proper due of late. It's important to note that minimizing "fat" of any and all kinds (as is implied here) is not recommended, and the notion of reducing fat intake is directed at those prone to consume saturated fats and other less desirable variants. See for instance the statements about studies of fat consumption in the recent Scientific American article Rebuilding the Food Pyramid. Let's not give poor, underappreciated olive oil a bad reputation. --Rethunk

Also: in today's world, it's much more difficult and more of a hassle to maintain a healthy and interesting vegetarian diet than to maintain (say) a standard American diet (whether you consider that heathy or not). This has several implications for this article; e.g. "for most people the only motivation for eating meat is simply the pleasure of eating it" is clearly not true. --Alex

Regarding whether fish can suffer: My problem with this is that this paragraph, and most of the whole article, seem slanted. I wouldn't say that it's overtly pro-vegetarianism, but you can certainly tell it was mostly written by pro-vegetarians. It gives plenty of time for the minutiae of pro-vegetarian arguments, and very little time to the common objections (which it then proceeds to refute).

So, back to the specifics: How can you have any evidence either way about whether a fish can "experience morally significant suffering"? To me, saying that "this assertion is not backed by any hard evidence" gives the suggestion that it's probably not true, when in fact it's neither true nor false - it's an opinion.

The part about the octopus is even more biased. The point of this article is not to give anyone pause, it's to present facts.

It's a very difficult question of whether a certain animal is sentient, has emotions, or can suffer, and if so, are these feelings the same as the equivalent feelings in humans, or are they similar, or are they even in the same ballpark? This paragraph leaves the distinct impression that these questions are fairly well settled - that if one gave it enough thought one would necessarily come to the conclusion that fish can "experience morally significant suffering". That's simply not the case.

Yes it is, as you can easily determine by causing pain to an animal and observing its reaction. In the US, there are even laws against unnecessary cruelty to animals. The "moral significance" of causing suffering to others, on the other hand, is mainly a question of faith and not provable with current scientific methods. Mkweise 23:04 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

Great seque to my favorite short story, on this very topic: The Soul of Mark III Beast (http://junkerhq.net/CS/MarkIII.html) --GG

IMO everything in this paragraph needs weasel words like "some vegetarians think." I'll try fixing this up soon. --GG

Actually, I agree with GG, and I was the one who brought up the octopus. The article doesn't feel right at the moment. I dislike weasel words, though. I think we need to re-write chunks altogether rather than disfiguring it with that irritating "some people say" style of faux-neutrality. --GrahamN 23:07 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

I made some major changes in this direction. Let me know if you think I went too far.

Removed most of the section on fish feelings - it was preachy, and was irrelevant to the topic at hand (the definition of vegetarianism)
Removed the section on Judaism. You can keep kosher and not be vegetarian, in fact I'm sure the vast majority of orthodox Jews aren't vegetarians. If you're out and about in a non-orthodox area, then you probably have to eat vegetarian meals to keep kosher, true, but that's far from being vegetarian.
Removed the list of Christian vegetarians - not relevant. If a religious movement encourages vegetarianism that's one thing, but simply because someone is a vegetarian and a Christian doesn't make them worthy of mention here.
Added some weasel words to the environmental section.
Removed most of the detail from the animal rights section. That belongs on the animal rights page, not here.
Same with the section on organic food.

--GG

I moved the list of Christian vegetarians to List of notable vegetarians - that certainly is a more appropriate place for it. I don't know enough about Jewish dietary rules to have an opinion as to the accuracy/appropriateness of the paragraph on that you removed. I'm glad that tumor of a paragraph about fish feelings is gone - it had gotten completely rediculous. I will rephrase and add back the paragraph about leather etc., because many vegetarians (including about a billion Hinuds) would consider wearing leather or washing with soap made from tallow a breach of their vegetarianism. Also I will see if I can dig up the source of the UN study (or was it Club of Rome?) and quote it properly in place of that generalized statement about economic and environmental cost of meat production. Mkweise 23:35 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Now that a lot of the tangential stuff has been pruned, this article is looking much better, in my opinion. --GrahamN 01:42 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Since I wrote that last commment the thing seems to have grown back to its previous state as a wild, untamed, overgrown mess. I may have a go at pruning it back if I find time. GrahamN 00:24, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html (The Naive Vegetarian)

this link is still dead as of 2003-02-15 (host second-opinions.co.uk not responding) --mkweise

it still works for me 2003-02-16, could it be blocked on your side? GGano

Neither I nor my ISP run any sort of blocking software, my best guess is that a router between me and that host is still affected by the slammer worm. Here's a trace:

Tracing route to www.second-opinions.co.uk [80.189.94.38] over a maximum of 30 hops:

 1    30 ms    50 ms    50 ms  10.92.216.1
 2    10 ms    20 ms    10 ms  172.30.142.145
 3    20 ms    20 ms    10 ms  172.30.142.187
 4    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  172.30.138.237
 5    40 ms    10 ms    20 ms  172.30.138.250
 6    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  68.80.0.234
 7    10 ms    10 ms    20 ms  POS4-0.hsipaccess2.Philadelphia1.Level3.net [63.208.100.69]
 8    10 ms    60 ms    40 ms  ge-6-2-1.mp2.Philadelphia1.level3.net [209.247..37]
 9    20 ms    20 ms    40 ms  so-3-0-0.mp1.NewYork1.Level3.net [64.159.1.41]
10   110 ms    81 ms    90 ms  so-0-0-0.mp1.London1.Level3.net [212.187.128.15]
11   130 ms    80 ms   141 ms  so-1-0-0.mp1.London2.Level3.net [212.187.128.49
12   150 ms    80 ms    80 ms  gige10-0.ipcolo1.London2.Level3.net [212.187.12.135]
13    80 ms   120 ms   110 ms  195.50.116.58
14     *        *        *     Request timed out.
15     *        *        *     Request timed out.
16     *        *        *     Request timed out.
17     *        *        *     Request timed out.
18     *        *        *     Request timed out.
19     *        *        *     Request timed out.
20     *        *        *     Request timed out.
21     *        *        *     Request timed out.
22     *        *        *     Request timed out.
23     *        *        *     Request timed out.
24     *        *        *     Request timed out.
25     *        *        *     Request timed out.
26     *        *        *     Request timed out.
27     *        *        *     Request timed out.
28     *        *        *     Request timed out.
29     *        *        *     Request timed out.
30     *        *        *     Request timed out.

Mkweise 21:24 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

It's there now, I just checked. The link works fine for me quercus robur 21:32 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)